Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Django 3.2

djangoproject.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 195 posts

Re: Django 3.2

#181

Post by dempseye »

dempseye wrote: post #94
peterpostman wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A couple of years ago(2014) I made my first Python website and really enjoyed, however when it was time to put it onlin I quickly discovered that setting up hosting and configuring it was as large a task in getting to know pip, env, unicorn, apache2 and a plethora of other software to host it, is this still the case? Becaue this is what keeps me of hosting websites with python.

> A couple of years ago(2014) This is a niggle, but it one that has been niggling at me for the last few days. "A couple" means "two," not "several."

Hilarious. I have been downvoted by illiterates.

Re: Django 3.2

#182

Post by detaro »

dempseye wrote: post #181
dempseye wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A couple of years ago(2014) This is a niggle, but it one that has been niggling at me for the last few days. "A couple" means "two," not "several."

Hilarious. I have been downvoted by illiterates.

Maybe go look in a dictionary before you claim other people are illiterates

Re: Django 3.2

#183

Post by robomartin »

bjourne wrote: post #176
robomartin wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

BTW, it's not that I am not confortable with Docker. In fact, we use it for development. This is more about time and resources. I run more than one business and a couple of them have more than one domain. We pay for a decent VPS and can host and manage as many email addresses and applications as we want. Yet we have to limit it to PHP (either pure PHP or something like Wordpress). And, BTW, I hate using PHP. For inte…

That's true. Every time I have to launch a new Django site I always have to spend an hour or two reading docs to refresh my memory on how to configure everything. SSL, systemd services, certificates, uwsgi, database setup, permissions, dns, email, etc. Someone could probably make a lot of money by creating some kind of Django+uwsgi+docker+nginx+postgreSQL bundle to make this process as painless as possible.

Here's one way I look at it. I don't need or want the simplified local development environment. As neat as "runserver" might be, it actually creates a problem, because going from there to production feels like the difference between driving on a lazy country road on a beautiful summer day to driving in the middle of one of the most chaotic cities in the world in a storm.

My humble suggestion would be that this form of easy local development should be deprecated in favor of creating a server-based local development model that translates 100%, without friction, to production servers.

Simple example, I do all my web development work either using a Linux server VM on my Windows machine or a Linux server on our network. These days, running a VM with whatever flavor of Linux isn't a problem for anyone. Django could, out of the box, come with such an arrangement for local development. Perhaps in the form of an Ansible script.

I would want to see at least two development scenarios supported. The first would be as close to bare metal as one might want to get (say, Linode) and the other should be setup to work on something like a GoDaddy multi-hosting VPS.

This would allow for frictionless transition from local development to production deployment for a huge class of sites. Anyone doing anything more complex than that would have the time and maybe even the engineers to devote to designing and deploying a complex infrastructure with multiple kinds of servers, load balancing, etc.

Bottom line is, I think "runserver" is a neat trick but it likely ends up causing far more frustration than might be obvious. I have spoken to a number of people who tried Django, liked it, and moved on in frustration when they hit a brick wall when they had to figure out deployment.

I like to say that people don't go to the hardware store to buy a drill bit. What they are after is a hole. It's the same with websites. Nobody needs a Django website. Nobody. There are a bunch of alternative technologies out there. Which means that if Django makes "getting a hole" difficult, people will just move on. They don't want to become experts in manufacturing drill bits, they just want a hole.

Re: Django 3.2

#184

Post by sgt »

nickjj wrote: post #180
sgt wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I went back to this thread to find the docker-django-example. I have to say, this is really solid work, and thank you for sharing it. Tailwind is commercial I see, is there a free way to get set up with a nice looking "dashboard + sidebar" UI without buying the Tailwind UI?

Thanks. TailwindCSS is open source and free. It's at https://tailwindcss.com/ . TailwindUI is an optional paid product that has a bunch of pre-made TailwindCSS components created by the makers of TailwindCSS. Basically pre-made widgets and layouts. TailwindUI has a few free components too (no signups required) at https://tailwindui.com/preview . And if you Google around for Tailwind components and themes you'll be ab…

I see TailwindUI is only about $170, so I went ahead and purchased it. It's of course CSS only, with templates for dashboards and things.

Re: Django 3.2

#185

Post by dempseye »

detaro wrote: post #182
dempseye wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hilarious. I have been downvoted by illiterates.

Maybe go look in a dictionary before you claim other people are illiterates

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/couple

1. two of the same sort considered together; pair.

2. two persons considered as joined together, as a married or engaged pair, lovers, or dance partners.

Are we done here, or do you need another English lesson?

Re: Django 3.2

#186

Post by httgp »

tracyhenry wrote: post #148
babelfish wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The creators of TailwindCSS also have a paid offering called TailwindUI (just pre-created components with documentation for your application and marketing site) that has React support. It also comes with Figma mockups for each component. It's a bit pricy but very high quality.

I never used Tailwind but given its popular modern look, I wonder why there is a lack of open source React components built on top of it?

Check out https://chakra-ui.com

Re: Django 3.2

#187

Post by tracyhenry »

httgp wrote: post #186
tracyhenry wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never used Tailwind but given its popular modern look, I wonder why there is a lack of open source React components built on top of it?

Check out https://chakra-ui.com

This React library doesn't seem to be based on Tailwind?

Re: Django 3.2

#188

Post by detaro »

dempseye wrote: post #185
detaro wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe go look in a dictionary before you claim other people are illiterates

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/couple 1. two of the same sort considered together; pair. 2. two persons considered as joined together, as a married or engaged pair, lovers, or dance partners. Are we done here, or do you need another English lesson?

Literally on https://www.dictionary.com/browse/couple, the page you linked:

> idioms for couple

a couple of, more than two, but not many, of; a small number of; a few:

It will take a couple of days for the package to get there.

A dinner party, whether for a couple of old friends or eight new acquaintances, takes nearly the same amount of effort.

And some more dictionaries that agree:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/couple

> an indefinite small number: few a couple of days ago

https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/englis...

> couple (of somebody/something) a small number of people or things: We went there a couple of years ago.*

Re: Django 3.2

#189

Post by dempseye »

detaro wrote: post #188
dempseye wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/couple 1. two of the same sort considered together; pair. 2. two persons considered as joined together, as a married or engaged pair, lovers, or dance partners. Are we done here, or do you need another English lesson?

Literally on https://www.dictionary.com/browse/couple , the page you linked: > idioms for couple a couple of, more than two, but not many, of; a small number of; a few: It will take a couple of days for the package to get there. A dinner party, whether for a couple of old friends or eight new acquaintances, takes nearly the same amount of effort. And some more dictionaries that agree: https://www.merriam-webster.com/…

The job of lexicographers is descriptive. They catalog all manner of inadvisable and illogical usages.

Therefore the idea that a usage is correct because it appears in a dictionary is nonsensical, and your instruction to me to "look in a dictionary" shows that you do not understand what the basic function of one of these volumes is.

A usage being common does not make it sensible or logical, and the use of "a couple" to refer to a period of seven whole years is neither. That is my contention - not that that nobody ever uses "a couple" to refer to more than two of a thing.

I could cherry-pick quotations from various style guides to support this, but I couldn't be bothered engaging with you any further, as you came in guns blazing and flagged my post.

Post reply on HN